SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Rapist Ex-President of Israel

THE SPINE JANUARY 2, 2011

The Rapist Ex-President of Israel

BY MARTIN PERETZ

It was not exactly uplifting to read about the conviction of Moshe Katzav, the former president of Israel, on several counts of rape and other accusations of sexual depredation. And, to tell the real truth, the Jewish state has had a rash of such offenders at high and middle levels that bring no glory to what is otherwise a highly cultured and civilized society - kind, demanding of standards, even sweet.

The sordid picture of Katzav lying in court and out--a powerful figure who achieved the highest honorific the commonwealth could bestow--painting himself as a victim of ethnic prejudice and legal chicanery is a sign of the disrespect he has not only for women but for the very polity of which he became so ugly a symbol.

Born in Iran, he clung to the racial stereotype of the mizrachi, those from the east, that has otherwise been outdated for decades. Nothing was too low for him to grasp at in his desperate attempt to evade the truth and its consequences. The fact is that the only vestige of this stereotype was that the rightist Likud party in the Knesset, Israel's parliament, plucked him from its ranks in a bid for the religious vote to defeat Shimon Peres, a puffy but historic figure in his own right, in the race for president.

Two observations:

1. The court that rendered the verdict of guilty consisted of three senior judges. Two are women and the other is an Arab who read out the long opinion. This, too, is representative of the Israeli system of justice.

2. In many Muslim countries, among them societies in the Arab Middle East, such a proceeding would be unthinkable. In fact, women who pressed such charges against any man, let alone one so powerful, would probably be stoned to death. This is one reason there are few accusations of rape in the world of Islam.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 36 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

36 comments

Mr. Peretz: Is it true that you are going to give up the Spine and if yes, why?

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 2, 2011 at 6:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Peretz I read in New York magazine that you are retiring from the Spine and from most of your tnr involvement. As you know, I have not been a huge fan of your work and have perhaps been a bit too enthusiastic in my efforts to let you know this. For that, I apologize. I do want you to know that I deeply appreciate your efforts at tnr and the gifts the magazine has given me over the past 30 years. I fell in love with tnr in 1982 and it is still my passion. Your passionate ownership of the magazine will always be appreciated by me. Despite my political disagreements with you, I wish you the best and hope that this next stage of your life brings you peace and happiness. God Bless, KG

- MrCookie1

January 2, 2011 at 8:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The sentiment is appreciated, but does this strike anyone else as uneasily defensive? "Israel is a great country because it prosecutes rapists" is hardly a ringing endorsement; more a bare minimum for membership of the "free world", really. It's like boasting about having a functional fire departme-... Never mind.

- Shorpe

January 2, 2011 at 11:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Shorpe “The sentiment is appreciated, but does this strike anyone else as uneasily defensive?” I am sure it does to you, Shorpe. To someone who equates having a “great fire department” (which Israel doesn’t have, btw) with prosecuting its President for rape of course will not see much difference between a functional democracy and theocratic tyrannies. I wonder if England would have prosecuted any of its kings (when they became mere figure heads) for rape? "Israel is a great country because it prosecutes rapists" is hardly a ringing endorsement;” Marty didn’t post this as a “ringing endorsement.” This you stop reading before you go to this? Marty Peretz: “It was not exactly uplifting to read about the conviction of Moshe Katzav, the former president of Israel, on several counts of rape and other accusations of sexual depredation. And, to tell the real truth, the Jewish state has had a rash of such offenders at high and middle levels that bring no glory to what is otherwise a highly cultured and civilized society - kind, demanding of standards, even sweet.” “more a bare minimum for membership of the "free world", really.” Do you think that France has a greater claim to membership in the free world? And why the quotes? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_scandals_in_the_Paris_region “Never mind.” I doubt any one this side of al Jazeera will pay you any mind.

- jdyer

January 2, 2011 at 11:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How do you turn off the red ink?

- jdyer

January 2, 2011 at 11:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

perhaps the red ink is a signal from new editor Just that The Spine is as insolvent as TNR ...

- K2K

January 3, 2011 at 9:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Perhaps the red ink is a signal that Peretz will fight on and not surrender.

- NR103166

January 3, 2011 at 11:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No red ink from where I look. Maybe it's an American problem.

- noga1

January 3, 2011 at 12:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But Noga, you have to be seeing some kind of text enhancement, right, e.g. bolding? Or are you just messing with our heads? From here it's bold in Firefox but bold and red in Explorer.

- ironyroad

January 3, 2011 at 1:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad: I can't understand why you always think I'm such a devious liar (this is not said with a smile, btw). I see no red ink and no bold text either. The only bolded text on my screen are the titles of posts on the right column of the page and this text: " Post new comment Your name: noga1 Comment: *" And in red "view full comment" at the end of each truncated comment.

- noga1

January 3, 2011 at 1:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is a simple sentiment admittedlybut: I'm just plain sorry this happened - to the innocent women involved and to a great nation that doesn't need this, no one does.

- WandreyCer

January 3, 2011 at 2:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof" "Justice, justice shall you pursue, that you may live." (Deut. 16:20) And the sage rabbis ask: "Why "justice" twice? To teach us: Pursue the goal of justice through means that are just. And to teach us: Justice for our selves. And justice for the other."

- noga1

January 3, 2011 at 2:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, yes we know that nothing like the the Katzava trial would ever take place in an Arab country. If Israel were located oh, say, where Uganda is, would that comparison matter? Does is matter because Israel, a democracy, is located where it is? Only as hasbara. We know Israel is a democracy and expect good civic behavior from it. Sof hadavar.

- pmchai

January 3, 2011 at 3:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

pmchai, I actually cringed when I read Marty's post. As if the very fact that justice was actually done, and that Rawls' veil of ignorance proves that it can be applied in a court of law, is an unusual thing in a democracy. Marty has to decide whether he has faith in Israel or he doesn't. I do not trust his kind of love for Israel. He is like a man who is deeply in love with his wife because she is so beautiful. Then she has an accident that leaves a scar on her left cheek. So he continues to protest that he loves her because she is so beautiful but takes care to always stand on her right side and see her unblemished cheek. When, despite his caution, he happens to catch a look at the other cheek, he reels in disgust but protests that she is still beautiful, from the right perspective. Never mind that his wife has always been the same person, with or without the scar and that he would have been much happier had he loved her for what she was, not just for what she looked like, whichh e thought was th eonly possible justification for his love for her.

- noga1

January 3, 2011 at 4:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

pmchai "If Israel were located oh, say, where Uganda is, would that comparison matter?" pmchai, Israel could not be located in Uganda nor anywhere else. There is a historic reason why Israel is located where it is. Your argument then is nonsense. Still if Israel were located somewhere else and other countries tried to delegitimize it, then yes the comparison would still matter. Israel should be proud to have a thriving democracy that lives by the rule of law. This has nothing to do with such superficial qualities like beauty.

- apter22

January 3, 2011 at 5:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, will you please stop this utter nonsense!!!! I did not accuse you of being either devious or a liar. At most, I was curious what browser you were using. If anyone here thinks my post of 1:27 p.m. above reads as anything except a leg-pull about what Noga was seeing on her screen, please let me know, as I'd appreciate an objective pair of eyes on this.

- ironyroad

January 3, 2011 at 5:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry, ironyroad. I'm totally exhausted today and my sense of humour is in tatters. I didn't read your comment as a leg pull. I thought you seriously meant to suggest I was deliberately lying for whatever reason. I'm on Firefox and everything looks as usual on my computer.

- noga1

January 3, 2011 at 6:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

apter22: "Israel should be proud to have a thriving democracy that lives by the rule of law. " A democracy means the rule of law as well as the pursuit of genuine decency and justice. There can be no reason for a democracy to be proud that it is a democracy, just as there is no reason why a righteous person should be proud that he doesn't lie or cheat or steal. Pride doesn't enter into it. To be decent means you don't do certain things and you don't expect to be paid for that. Pride is a sort of payment, a reward. It is out of place in this context. Israel should be proud that it has a thriving economy, a high level of scientific, technological and cultural production. For this it takes talent and dedication and merit being rewarded. But for being a just society that can bring to justice miscreant presidents and such, Israel should not rewarded. The very fact of being decent is all the reward it needs. It is what Israel is and ought to be. End of homily.

- noga1

January 3, 2011 at 7:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OK, Noga, a misunderstanding. But that is odd, that your Firefox is showing different characteristics from mine and malahat's.

- ironyroad

January 3, 2011 at 8:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am proud that I live in a dmecratic country and I assume Israelis are proud to live in one as well.

- apter22

January 3, 2011 at 8:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's why I said that maybe it is an American problem...

- noga1

January 3, 2011 at 8:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"... and I assume Israelis are proud to live in one as well." Most Israelis like living in Israel and are happy to live in their own country and culture. They worked hard to get it and of that they have every right to be proud. But they cannot be proud to live in a democracy because Israel cannot be anything but a democracy just as I cannot be proud of being me because I cannot be anyone but me. I can try to ameliorate myself and improve my short temper and if I succeed, I might allow myself a little bit of pride in that achievement. Other than that, I have no reason to be proud of myself just because I am myself. It's not such a difficult idea to understand, apter22. You ought not to reward people for behaving ethically because if you do it means that ethical behaviour is the exception rather than the rule.

- noga1

January 3, 2011 at 8:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have no idea what got you going. I have heard many people from different countries being congratulated for living in a democracy. They don't usually get angry when someone else says it to them. Most people in the world don't take democracy for granted, it's not the same as being oneself. Israel is a democracy because people worked to make it that way and not because "it couldn't be anything else."

- apter22

January 3, 2011 at 10:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not angry, apter. I'm just trying to finesse a point that Israel was born a democracy and the fact that it has a decent society is not a cause for celebration but for good maintenance. That's all.

- noga1

January 3, 2011 at 10:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good. Now we are changing the name of we makes you proud. Maintaining a democracy is no small potatoes. So many countries born in hope of democracy fail to maintain it. I applaud Israel for maintaining its democracy be convicting its former president.

- apter22

January 3, 2011 at 11:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

well, everything after MrCookie is still bold red - I use Explorer - but red ink really is an American problem. Now looks like Illinois may go bust before California. Did Peretz express similar disgust and outrage over Bill Clinton's trial? I know there were no blogs like this back then, but remember reading the transcript in the NYT at lunch and mumbling aloud "this is like pornography", for which I was then accused of 'sexual harrassment' by a temp. The resolution was merciful because it was subsequently discovered that she was disappearing for hours at a time, and judged to be "unreliable" (the actual word was nutcase).

- K2K

January 4, 2011 at 5:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K, you've led quite a life. That last sentence made me laugh.

- MOLLYSIMON

January 4, 2011 at 9:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Did Peretz express similar disgust and outrage over Bill Clinton's trial?" You should never ask a question in a debate if you don't already know the answer.

- apter22

January 4, 2011 at 10:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Once again Apter I find myself disagreeing with your concepts. This is not a debate; it is a discussion. And one thing about a discussion among like minded people interested not only in persuasion but in expanding understanding and knowledge is that questions are asked for which the answer is not known. In a debate as in the court room a question is never asked for which the answer is not known. This is if I recall correctly, Rumpole's #2 principle (after his #1: Never plead guilty!). But happily we are not in a court here nor are we in a debate, per se. So, do you know anything about how Peretz responded to Clinton's scandal? I don't remember Clinton being impeached for rape charges, BTW. I believe he was being impeached for lying about having sex with "that woman". And as a footnote, I agree with K2k that Ken Starr's report was indeed pornographic. It was shocking to read the degree of intimate details he managed to extract from "that woman". The preservation of that woman's right to privacy and dignity was not uppermost on his mind. Was it really necessary for his case to humiliate her, and him, like this?

- noga1

January 5, 2011 at 12:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The preservation of that woman's right to privacy and dignity was not uppermost on his mind. Was it really necessary for his case to humiliate her, and him, like this?" "That woman" was raped by the legal system. She does not deserve the life she got. What happened to her is a disgrace and I don't know how her lawyers can defend themselves. They were tools of the system. It was not at all necessary to humiliate either of them. Unless of course you mean was it necessary for the Republican agenda. Democrats, cowards all, deferred to the ruling meme of the time.

- MOLLYSIMON

January 5, 2011 at 2:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"So, do you know anything about how Peretz responded to Clinton's scandal? I don't remember Clinton being impeached for rape charges, BTW. " He was impeached but he wasn't convicted. Didn't you know that? Start reading back issues of TNR if you want to know where the editors stood on Clinton's sex problems. And Noga I am not here to expand arguments of lines of thought.

- apter22

January 5, 2011 at 6:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"He was impeached but he wasn't convicted. Didn't you know that?" Isn't that what I said? "Start reading back issues of TNR if you want to know where the editors stood on Clinton's sex problems." Does that mean that you know the answer but don't wish to share?

- noga1

January 5, 2011 at 6:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"He was impeached but he wasn't convicted. Didn't you know that?" Isn't that what I said? No. you said, that you don't remember if he was impeached. "I don't remember Clinton being impeached for rape charges" Impeachment and conviction are two distinct legal matters.

- apter22

January 5, 2011 at 9:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What I said was: "I don't remember Clinton being impeached for rape charges, BTW. I believe he was being impeached for lying about having sex with "that woman". " What it means is that I was calling attention to K2K's misapplied analogy between the two cases. What an extraordinary conversation we are having, apter. Talk about a dialogue of the deaf.

- noga1

January 5, 2011 at 10:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga you are too clever by half. You are also pretty tedious.

- apter22

January 5, 2011 at 10:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.hudson-ny.org/1787/can-a-judiciary-that-convicted-israel-former "...the most important reason why any investigation of Israel would be "inadmissible" under the law is that the statute that governs the ICC specifically provides that a case against a nation is "inadmissible" if that country has a judicial system that is "independently and impartially" willing and able to apply the rule of law to its own citizens. Here is what the statute says: "the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where: (a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution" In order to determine whether this criteria has been met: "the Court shall consider whether, due to a total or substantial collapse or unavailability of its national judicial system, the State is unable to obtain the accused or the necessary evidence and testimony or otherwise unable to carry out its proceedings." Even Israel's enemies concede that the Israeli judiciary is a model of independence and impartiality. A poll of West Bank Palestinians demonstrated that the institution they would most like to see their own "government" emulate is the Israeli judiciary, which is open to all, including West Bank Palestinians, and which routinely rules against the Israeli government and military. If any more proof were needed of the ability and willingness of the Israeli courts to do impartial justice, the recent trial and conviction of Israel's former president for the serious crime of rape, surely provides it. Whether that decision was right or wrong on the merits –the evidence of rape was deemed questionable even by the prosecutor—the fact that a former president was tried and convicted is virtually unprecedented among democracies. Nor is this the only case in which high ranking officials have been brought down by the Israeli legal system. ..." "Can A Judiciary That Convicted Israel's Former President Be Trusted to Investigate Alleged War Crimes?" by Alan M. Dershowitz January 7, 2011 at 2:25 pm

- K2K

January 7, 2011 at 3:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close